Pacific States-British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
-
Upload
haviva-black -
Category
Documents
-
view
20 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Pacific States-British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington
Pacific States-British Columbia Oil Spill Task ForceAnnual Meeting
Seattle, WashingtonSeptember 25, 2013
Geographic Region
Project Background
• 1999 Safety of Navigation Forum – Homer
• 2000 Ports and Waterway Safety Assessment
• 2006 Sea Bulk Pride Grounding
• 2006 Cook Inlet Vessel Traffic Study
• 2007 Navigational Safety Forum – Anchorage
• 2008 Risk of Vessel Accidents and Spills
• 2009 Aleutian Island Risk Assessment
Project Background
2007 Navigational Forum – Consensus Points• Cook Inlet RCAC should move forward with a
risk assessment,• Engaging in the political process will be
necessary to obtain funding, and• Public participation and outreach will be
critical to the success of the risk assessment.
Funding Partners
• State of Alaska
• U.S. Coast Guard
• National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
• Tesoro Alaska
• PWS RCAC
Organization
Management Team
– Mike Munger, CIRCAC– Steve Russell, ADEC– Captain Paul Mehler, USCG
Project Managers– Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC.– Pearson Consulting, LLC.
Organization
Advisory Panel• Fisheries
• Local Government
• Mariner, Pilot
• Mariner, Salvor
• Mariner, Containerships
• Mariner, Tug and Barge
• Mariner, Tank Ship
• Mariner, General
• Non-Governmental Org.
• Resource Manager
• Subsistence User
Work PlanMilestone Targeted/Completion Date
Establish Advisory Panel September 2011
Final Vessel Traffic Study February 2012
Final Spill and Casualty Study July 2012
Consequence Workshop October 2012
Consequence Report March 2013
Identify Risk Reduction Options July 2013
Research and Implement Risk Reduction Options Currently Underway
Rank and Prioritize Risk Reduction Options 2rd Quarter 2014
Draft Final Report 2rd Quarter 2014
Publish Final Report September 2014
Vessel Traffic Study
Findings
• 480 ship port calls• 80% of the calls were made by 15 ships• 218 million gallons of persistent oil and 9
million gallons of non-persistent oil were moved on 83 tank ship voyages to or from the Nikiski and Drift River terminals
Vessel Traffic Study
Findings
• 36% of all persistent oil moved was fuel oil on dry cargo ships calling at Anchorage
• 102 oil barge transits moved 366 million gallons of nonpersistent oil; the greatest amount of oil moved by a single vessel type
Spill Baseline & Causality Study
•Analyzed vessel traffic patterns
•Analyzed vessel casualty/spill incidents
•Analyzed casualty/spill causes
•Analyzed potential spill volumes
•Determined most likely scenarios
Spill Rates and Scenarios
• Vessel Types– Tank Ships and Tank Barges– Non-Tank/Non-workboat vessels (Cargo, Cruise ship)
• Highest forecasted spill rate of 1.3 per year
– Workboats (OSV, Towboat/Tugboat)• Highest baseline spill rate of 0.96 per year
– Sum of the four vessel types is 3.9 spills per year• Scenarios defined for 2,112 unique combinations of vessel
types and spill factor subcategories.• Majority of scenarios have low to very low relative risk level.• Tank ships have lowest baseline spill rate, but have the most
risk from an oil spill.
Consequence Analysis
Workshop was held in Anchorage Oct 30 & 31, 2012
Consequence Analysis Workshop
• Based on Expert Judgment
• Considered 7 spill scenarios
• Characterized likely impacts
Consequence Analysis Workshop
• Both persistent and non-persistent oil spill scenarios were evaluated
• The conclusion were that even moderate size spills (~100 bbl) can have significant impacts
• Over 40 people attended the Workshop• Workshop report completed March 2013
Risk Reduction Options
Twenty-five Risk Reductions Reviewed:
Eight RRO’s for Immediate Implementation
Eight RRO’s for Further Consideration
Nine RRO’s for Exclusion
Risk Reduction Options for Immediate or Sustained Implementation
• Establish Process Improvements for All of Cook Inlet– Establish a Harbor Safety Committee
– Harbormasters and Port Directors should notify the U.S. Coast Guard if they determine a vessel to be unsafe or unseaworthy
Risk Reduction Options for Immediate or Sustained Implementation
Enhance Navigational Safety
Review and consider revisions to NOAA’s Coast Pilot
Add sub-sea infrastructure identified in Cook Inlet to NOAA’s Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWIOS)
Continue to update and improve winter ice guidelines, as needed
Risk Reduction Options for Immediate or Sustained Implementation
• Enhance Navigational Safety (Cont.)– Improve cell phone coverage on marine waters in
Cook Inlet
– Sustain and expand training for pilots, captains, and crew
– Maintain project depth in Cook Inlet, especially at Knik Arm Shoal
Risk Reduction Options for Immediate or Sustained Implementation
• Improve Spill Response Planning and Capabilities– Promulgate final response planning regulations for
non-tank vessels
– Update and improve the subarea contingency plan
– Seek continuous improvements in spill response equipment appropriate to Cook Inlet conditions
Risk Reduction Options for Further Consideration
• Increase rescue towing capability in Cook Inlet• Construct cross-inlet pipeline from Drift River
to Nikiski• Enhance situational awareness and
communication through 2-way AIS• Improve ice monitoring capability• Encourage third-party inspections or audits of
workboats
Project ScheduleCook Inlet Risk Assessment Project Schedule
Task
2013 2014
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Task B-1 Towing Analysis
Task B-2 Construct Cross-Inlet Pipeline from Drift River to Nikiski
Task B-3 Enhance Situation Awareness by Transmitting WX information via AIS
Task B-4 Improve Ice Monitoring Capability
Task C Implement items related to RROs for immediate or sustained implementation
Task D Review results of research with Team to agree on recommended options
Task E Prepare a final report
www.cookinletriskassessment.com
Questions?